It’s good if it’s your side that’s won, but if you’re impartial, it means that a Test has been one-sided. Australia’s innings victory over West Indies also raises uncomfortable and unwelcome questions about the future of the West Indies as a Test team, even if their best player, Adrian Barath, does have a few years left in him.

India’s innings victory over Sri Lanka is more welcome. Firstly, Sri Lanka scored 760-7 in the first Test, which was good batting, but not good cricket. By actually seeing some wickets, Indian fans might not be driven further towards the shorter formats and by seeing their team gaily prance to victory without a care in the world, they might even warm to Tests a bit. Plus, India should win at home. A tour of India being as hard as diamonds is one of the defining features of cricket.

But if you really want good cricket, look to New Zealand v Pakistan. No declarations, tough batting in the second innings and a tight finish. The balance between bat and ball changed as the match progressed and the players who did well can feel damn pleased with themselves. New Zealand didn’t just win; they earned victory.

There was one good reason the NZ-Pak test was good – fiery fast bowling that made sure that the batting was rendered inept. No, it is not the close finish – that has never been the hallmark of tests. It is ironic so many people over so many blogs are going gaga over the tight finish – an intrinsically “one-day” characteristic.

@KC: “A tight finish is a bonus” – That’s fair. My point was that this should not be one of the standards when judging the overall quality of a test match.

“Equally, a vast first innings that takes one result out of the equation doesn’t help matters” – No, it tests the mettle of the other side. Sometimes, like in chess, it’s important to know how to draw too.

By the way, I stumbled upon this blog only recently and am thoroughly enjoying it.